Articles Tagged with refusal of test

Suppose a police officer comes to your home tonight without a warrant and wants you to consent to a search of your residence. If you are like most people, you would say ‘no’: you would assert your Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Now suppose the government makes it a crime for you to refuse to consent to the search. That’s what Ohio and several other states have done with DUI laws which criminalize refusing a breath/blood/urine test. Those laws are the subject of cases currently before the United States Supreme Court.

Refusal talk to the hand

The cases are Birchfield v. North Dakota, Bernard v. Minnesota, and Beylund v. Levi. In those cases, state laws make it a criminal offense for a motorist arrested for driving under the influence to refuse to consent to a chemical test of the motorist’s blood, breath or urine. Motorists convicted of those laws appealed their convictions to the Supreme Courts of North Dakota and Minnesota, claiming the refusal laws are unconstitutional. In each case, the state supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the law. In each case, the defendant appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court held oral arguments for these cases on April 20, 2016.

 

Ohio has a law similar to the laws which are the subject of the Supreme Court cases. Ohio’s law (R.C. 4511.19[A][2]) makes it illegal to refuse a breath/blood/urine test for a person who is arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI) and has a prior OVI conviction within the last 20 years. The punishment for this offense includes a minimum mandatory jail sentence which is double the minimum mandatory jail sentence for OVI. Although Ohio’s law is slightly different –it has the added element of a prior conviction – it has the same unconstitutional flaw as the laws in North Dakota and Minnesota.

Continue Reading

A judge in Columbus, Ohio found a man to be in violation of probation because the man was unable to urinate upon request.  The judge was aware the defendant, Mr. Hand, had medical problems which caused urinary difficulties and was taking medication designed to increase his urination.  Nevertheless, the judge concluded Mr. Hand’s inability to urinate constituted a “refusal” to submit to a urine test.  Individuals placed on probation for DUI/OVI in Ohio do not have this kind of experience, ordinarily.  But this was no ordinary case.

dreamstime_m_7554688

Ordinarily, probation (also called “community control” in Ohio) is imposed by a judge for two reasons.  First, probation is imposed so somebody has the responsibility of monitoring the defendant’s compliance with court orders.  That somebody is the probation officer.  Second, probation is imposed to give the defendant incentive to comply with court orders.  If a probationer does not comply with court orders, judges can impose more restrictive probation conditions, lengthen the duration of probation, and impose jail time.

Before a judge can sentence a person for violating probation, the judge must hold a hearing.  At the hearing, the judge first determines if there is probable cause to believe the defendant violated probation.  The judge then determines whether the defendant did, in fact, violate probation.  If the judge concludes the defendant violated probation, the judge imposes a sentence:  more restrictive conditions, additional probation time, and/or jail time.

In the case of Mr. Hand, the judge ordered pretty common probation conditions:  Mr. Hand was ordered to complete a driver intervention program, complete any follow-up counseling recommended by that program, and complete 80 hours of community service.  He was also required to submit to alcohol/drug screens and not refuse any tests (for alcohol/drugs).

Continue Reading